Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 09-cv-80469-Marra/M JANE DOE II, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and I REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT Defendant by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.1, replies to Plaintiff's Memorandum Of Law In Opposition to Defendant Motion To Set Aside Default (DE 47) and states as follows: asks the Court to set aside default in this case because service of process was legally deficient under New York law, and, the entry of default was premature. Moreover, El asks the Court to set aside the default because she has a meritorious defense to the instant action which might affect the outcome, granting her motion to set aside the default would not result in prejudice to the non-defaulting party, and default in this action was not willful. Service of Process Was Legally Deficient Under New York Law It is undisputed by the parties that the purported service of process on in this action is pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 4(e)( I ) which allows service "pursuant to the law of the state . .. in which effected." In this case, Plaintiff claims to have served in New York under section 308(4) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"), which is 1 EFTA02750657